The [MeasureCore1] - [MeasureCore8] measures read a registry key for each of the eight possible cores. If a core don't exists, the appropriate value is 0, otherwise it is greater than 0. So, the total number of cores is equal with the number of read none-zero values. The number of shown line meters must be in accord with this number. This is done by the IfCondition / IfTrueAction options of the [MeasureNumberOfCores] measure.
In this code I rearranged again the meters, to have the dates of the first two cores on the first line, the third and fourth core on the second line and so on. I did this because when exist just let's say, two cores, wouldn't look good to have the two line meters one below the other.
Please let me know if this code works as it should.

anbr07 wrote:Works great, thanks again. Nice, that it will adapt to the number of cores. Looking forward to try it out soon.

No, it don't work great!
The code has a problem: the [meterLabelRAM] meter is placed to Y=130. This means that the meters related to the RAM usage will be placed in the same place, no matter how many cores are present and that's not ok. If we adapted the number of line meters according to the number of cores, we also should move the RAM usage meters as well. Theoretically replacing its Y option with Y=6R would fix this and usually it indeed does, except the situation when there is only one single core. In this case, because the meters of the second core will be hidden, the meters of the RAM usage will overlap the line meter of the first core. I found one single possibility to fix that: setting the Y option of the [meterLabelRAM] meter with some !SetOption bangs. So, I added the following bangs: [!SetOption meterLabelRAM Y "26r"][!UpdateMeter "meterLabelRAM"][!Redraw] to the IfTrueAction (when the number of cores is odd) option of the [MeasureNumberOfCores] measure (beside the existing bangs) and [!SetOption meterLabelRAM Y "6R"][!UpdateMeter "meterLabelRAM"][!Redraw] to the IfTrueAction2 - IfTrueAction5 (when the number of cores is even):

anbr07 wrote:I tried the new code, but the graph was misplaced, and the label missing. I will investigate later, if i made some mistake. Could be, that i have removed the wrong "Y" code? I will report back.

No, now it appears to be perfect. Maybe the word "SYSTEM" could go, because i have it covered by the browser window anyway, making it even e bit mor compact. Otherwise, now i have exactly what i wanted. Thanks a lot, great work!